Import Controls or Socialist Plan?

At the time of the struggle against pit closures in Britain in 1992/93 the old argument in favour of import controls to save British Coal was raised. Phil Mitchinson explains why this is not an "alternative" that socialists would put forward.

The Tories' announcement that it intended to close 31 pits, coming
as it did in the same period that huge Job losses were an pounced by
BT, British Gas, Fords and many others, sparked off the marvellous
demonstrations in London at the end of last year. The fight to save
the pits captured the imagination of workers all over Britain
representing as it did the fight to save jobs. How could these pits,
along with the other threatened sections of British industry be
saved?

Without a fighting lead from the tops of the TUC and with no
socialist alternative being offered by the leadership of the Labour
Party many workers looked for a way out on the basis of the present
system.

The old policy of import controls came out from it's hiding place,
particularly in relation to the coal industry, but not only there.
The idea of preventing the import of heavily subsidised coal from
Germany, and equally subsidised nuclear electricity from France as
well as the coal produced by cheap labour in South Africa, Poland and
elsewhere, was raised by some on the left and on the right of the
Labour movement.

British Industry

It was also raised by a small section of Tories and businessmen,
fearful of either losing support in their mining constituencies or of
the social and economic effect of a further decimation of British
Industry. Many of the other policy prescriptions of the left in the
past such as exchange controls and devaluation were already redundant
as a result of the ERM debacle. Although no doubt even these will be
resurrected in the future though.

But the idea of import controls appears to have gained some
support not only from a section of miners, who understandably are
desperately trying to save their industry and their communities, but
other sections of the Labour movement generally.

The main attraction of import controls is that they appear to
offer an easy way out. The innate conservatism of the human mind,
which tends to lag behind the development of the productive forces
and technique, and resists the idea of fundamental change until it is
left with no other alternative, means that the great majority of
society, including the working class, will desperately seek solutions
which do not imply a sudden and decisive break with the past.

In the first instance many workers will seek the "line of least
resistance". As the crisis develops, all sorts of quack theories and
panaceas will inevitably rise to meet this demand. Import controls,
it would seem, are easy to understand, and apparently just as easy to
apply, and therefore have all the compelling attraction of an instant
"miracle cure" for a nasty and painful disease. But beware, before
swallowing the medicine take the manufacturers advice, read the label
carefully, what will be the consequences and sideeffects of such a
policy?

We all know from bitter experience, any economic policy that is
defended by the bosses is almost certain to be in direct
contradiction to the interests of working people. Far from being an
argument in favour then, the fact that a section of diedin-thewool
reactionaries in the Tory party and the CBI put forward this policy
should in itself make us think twice before adopting the same
position. These Tories who claimed to support the miners showed their
true colours when the white paper was announced. The workers can
trust only their own forces and their own organisations in the fight
to defend jobs.

Chorus of Protectionism

But aren't import controls a socialist policy? Why would a section
of the bosses support import controls? In whose interests would this
policy work? What effect would their introduction have on jobs and
prices? If they are really such a good idea, why haven't they been
implemented already? These are the questions every thinking worker
should consider before joining in this new chorus of protectionism.

The advocates of import controls argue that their introduction
would afford British industry, or rather specific sections of it, the
coal industry for example, a breathing space "protecting" at least
the domestic market for home produce, allowing the capitalists the
time they need to retool and re-equip industry. That task
accomplished, the "temporary" measure of import controls could be
dispensed with, and Britain would once again be set to become the
"workshop of the world." (And these people are supposed to be the
realists!)

Even then, they argue, controls would only apply to those parts of
the economy which were seriously threatened, noone is calling for
controls on all imports, only on those affecting certain selected
industries.

Clearly these arguments won't bear up to a thorough examination.
In the first place the difference between "selective" controls and
general ones is mere sleight of hand. We would ask the supporters of
these "selective" controls which sections of British industry are
safe, secure and without the need of protection?

In reality, almost all of what remains of British manufacturing is
under threat at the present time. In other words import controls
would have to embrace the decisive sections of manufacturing,
precisely those subject to the most cutthroat competition
internationally.

In a period of generally expanding world trade, the supporters of
import controls might argue that with trade growing for everyone,
Britain's overseas rivals "wouldn't mind" if Britain protected some
of it's own industry. Whether this is true or not we are clearly not
in such a period of general expansion. That is precisely why the
decisive sections of the British capitalists have rejected the idea
of introducing protectionist measures to date, at least in an open
and undisguised form. They fear retaliation from their foreign rivals
which would seriously damage the British economy, which is heavily
dependent on the world market.

Cutthroat Competition

Of course there's no honour amongst thieves. Disguised import
controls have existed for a long time in the form of quotas, state
subsidies and a whole list of legal regulations tending to limit
imports and "protect" national industries. The steady growth of these
tendencies is an expression of the cutthroat competition in a
situation of contracting world markets. The fact that British
capitalists may be forced to introduce import controls by the rising
tide of protectionism internationally is all the more reason why we
should oppose them.

Now, some workers, still harbouring illusions that it is possible
to find a way out on the basis of capitalism, will be prepared to
embrace import controls as a "practical" solution to the problem of
unemployment, at least in the short term. In reality, however, whilst
the introduction of "selective" controls might save some industries,
and even then only temporarily, it would be at the expense of others.
The increased price of goods which would inevitably flow from such a
measure, would reduce the ability of British workers to buy other
goods provoking crises in other sections of the national economy. In
other words it would at best mean the transference of unemployment
from one industry to another, at worst, with the development of a
trade war, an economic disaster in which there could be no winners,
but British capitalism would be hit especially hard, and as usual it
would be the workers who would be asked to pay with more unemployment
and price rises.

Just what effect would this policy have on prices? The British
capitalists freed from competition with their foreign rivals would
increase their prices and, without any incentive to undercut the
price of British goods, foreign capitalists would raise the price of
those imports that were allowed in. In other words workers would be
forced to pay for keeping their jobs with another variation of a pay
cut.

Price Rises Inevitable

In addition, British industry is heavily reliant on the import of
machine tools and semi-manufactures as well as raw materials, so if
import controls were placed on these it would increase the operating
costs of British industry further undermining it's competitiveness,
leading to more job losses.

As far as the coal industry is concerned, British deepmined coal
is already the cheapest in Europe, the reason it can't compete with
German coal is because the German capitalists have at least had the
common sense to subsidise it and treat it as a strategic reserve, the
British bosses, however prefer to rely on the anarchy of "market
forces".

So much for the economic consequences of import controls, but for
socialists the matter does not rest there. Behind all the "Buy
British" campaigns and appeals to save British jobs from the "enemy
without", lurks a real threat to the class consciousness of workers
and to replace the instinctive bonds of international class
solidarity with the poison of nationalism.

Moral Arguments

At this point we should also examine the most insidious of the
arguments for import controls, the argument of the "moral high
ground". If we look at the example of coal, some on the left argue
that while not supporting import controls as such, we should oppose
the import of coal from South Africa and Colombia because to do
otherwise would be to support the racist regime of the one and the
enforced childlabour of the other. In other words, slyly disguised
import controls masquerading as "internationalism". Why not ban all
imports from these countries? What about all the other brutal
regimes in the world?

The only effective way to assist the struggle of workers in other
countries is for us to concentrate on stepping up the fight against
our own capitalists, not to side with them against their foreign
rivals. Of course it comes as no surprise that reactionaries on the
right can spout such nationalist claptrap but for Labour
representatives, especially those on the left to do likewise is
unacceptable. It shows in practice where the defence of import
controls ultimately leads to a common front of British workers with
British bosses against foreign workers and their employers.

Let us be clear, the blame for the appalling decline of British
industry lies not with unfair competition from abroad, or still less
with workers in other countries, but fairly and squarely on the
shoulders of the British bosses and the entire capitalist system.

None of this, however, should be interpreted as meaning that we
are great defenders of "free trade". Just because we oppose one
capitalist policy does not mean that we defend another. In any case,
how can the "market" possibly be the solution when, as we have shown,
it is precisely the market and free trade i.e. capitalism, which has
created this mess in the first place. The market isn't the answer,
it's the problem.

Karl Marx explained over a hundred years ago that neither "free
trade" nor "protection" could solve the problems facing workers. So
what is the solution?

Coal Industry

If we take the coal industry as an example again, what is needed
is not the free play of market forces, or controls on imports, but an
integrated energy plan. But you can't plan what you don't control and
you can't control what you don't own. In other words, the
nationalisation of gas, oil and electricity is what's required. Not
the kind of nationalisation that we have seen in the past, however,
where industries were state funded, but run as private industries,
with the workers having no say in the matter. A socialist policy of
nationalisation would have to enable workers to run industry
democratically. Production could then be planned in the interests of
society, making the most efficient use of resources, and protecting
the health and safety of the workers, the local community, and the
environment in general. Some on the left of the Labour movement have
raised a kind of halfway house position of some nationalisation,
particularly of the privatised utilities, combined with controls on
imports.

While we would of course agree with the call to re-nationalise
these industries (along the above lines and only compensating those
shareholders in genuine need), the privatisation of which has led not
to increased competition but the creation of private monopolies which
have raised prices, cut services and jobs, clearly this would not be
enough. To enable the economy to be planned, will require the
nationalisation of the banks, financial institutions and big
monopolies too.

A Labour Party proposing to control capitalism, especially if it
proposes nationalising key sections of the economy would face
sabotage and a vicious campaign through the media, the courts and the
other arms of the capitalist state to prevent it gaining power. That
being the case, why propose tinkering with the system, why not
abolish it altogether?

As unemployment continues to rise, and the prospect of a return to
the "good old days" fades, we can be sure from past experience that
the leaders of the labour movement including those on the left will
continue to rummage in the dustbin of history for all kinds of ways
of shoring up decrepit and decaying capitalism, and all this in the
name of "modernisation". There are none so blind as those who refuse
to see. All they are doing is prolonging the deathagony of the
system and lending it a more violent and convulsive character.

The dialectical contradiction of reformism is that it always
succeeds in achieving end results diametrically opposed to their
stated intentions. They imagine that they are being practical when in
reality they are utopian. They imagine that they are defending a
socialist policy when in fact they are advocating a reactionary
nationalist position, and are doomed to have their clothes stolen by
the most reactionary elements as the tendency toward protectionism
grows internationally.

Leadership's Role

It is the task of a leadership to lead, not to tailend the bosses
and their representatives. The call for import controls is no
substitute for a fighting socialist policy against redundancies and
unemployment. It only serves to divert workers attention from the
fundamental issues and in particular the fight against their own
bosses, the "enemy within", by pointing a finger at foreign workers
as well as foreign capitalists. The only answer to this crisis is
indeed the most modern policy of all, socialism. No control can be
established over the economy while the purse strings remain in the
hands of the capitalists. No job is safe and there will be no end to
the colossal waste of human resources that unemployment represents
while production is based on profit and the anarchy of the market.

A socialist plan of production, based on the nationalisation of
the commanding heights of the economy, under democratic control by
the workers, could not only save jobs but eradicate unemployment.
Once the profit motive is removed all the talent of human resources
currently wasted could be employed. Such a socialist plan would be an
inspiration to the workers of Europe and the rest of the world. On
the basis of a common plan of production throughout Europe, trade
could be managed without threatening jobs, but by the harmonious
pooling of resources. A Labour leadership committed to such a
programme would not only be more likely to win elections but could
rely on the support of the working class against any attempted
sabotage by the capitalists, who would not simply hand over it's
privileges without a fight. As the old saying goes, a thing isn't
worth having unless it's worth fighting for, and what could be more
worth fighting for than an end to the uncertainty, chaos and misery
of capitalism, and the building of a socialist future?